"300" - Merged Thread

[Marc Chevalier]

I will not be seeing 300 thankyouverymuch.

I hear ya. It's today's version of those '50s sword epics with Tony Curtis: "Yonda lies da castle of my fadda."

.

 

[Feraud]

Sorry, but as someone who loves modern takes on noir style, Sin City is one of my least favorite movies of the last 10 years. Contentless at its best and 2 dimensional recreations of classic archtypes at its worst. No setups, no emotion (w/exception of Rourke) and just not cool enough looking to make up for it. I will not be seeing 300 thankyouverymuch.

I am sure there were those who spoke the same words while describing the "true" Noir films of the past.
We view history through rose colored glasses and I have no doubt there are not many people around here whom I would ever have seen sitting though and appreciating the Noir classics such as Double Indemnity, Touch of Evil, Nightmare Alley, The Set-Up.
They would have said, "it could never happen, cops do not act that way. Women do not behave like that..." and so on.

Ultimately Film is a subjective medium. People react differently to the same film.

I am going to play devil's advocate here. If Sin City was a two dimensional film, what is Chinatown? Former cop, now a private eye. The dame and her problems.
Btw, I like Chinatown.

 

[Doctor Strange]

There are now four reviews of the film up at Metacritic (and there will be many more in the next couple of days):

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/300

The one by James Berardinelli that I posted earlier today is the most positive. The most negative - and funny - one is from The Village Voice. While their usual hipper-than-thou agenda is present, there's also some good observation of how absurdly over-the-top the film's approach is.

Nah, it's not for me. As much of a stolid B-picture as it is, I'll stick with the 1962 "The 300 Spartans". (You know, there's a lot be said for the old straightforward, low-budg B-pics... vs. today's self-impressed, overhyped, expensive B-pics.)

 

[Story]

Look! A Spartan with a gun!

Phillistine.

It's not a gun, it's a .455 Webley-Fosbery automatic-revolver.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Phillistine.

It's not a gun, it's a .455 Webley-Fosbery automatic-revolver.

True. And the guy's not a Spartan.

.

 

[Story]

True. And the guy's not a Spartan.

.

This tangent has been brought to you by The Deconstructionists (TM).

 

[Feraud]

and from Rotten Tomatoes...

 

[Marc Chevalier]

True. And the guy's not a Spartan.

This tangent has been brought to you by The Deconstructionists (TM).

Ceci N'est Pas Un Pipe, Inc.

.

 

[Story]

Ceci N'est Pas Un Pipe, Inc..

Indeed. It could only have been Colonel Mustard.
In the library.
With a monkey wrench.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

I am sure there were those who spoke the same words while describing the "true" Noir films of the past.
We view history through rose colored glasses and I have no doubt there are not many people around here whom I would ever have seen sitting though and appreciating the Noir classics such as Double Indemnity, Touch of Evil, Nightmare Alley, The Set-Up.
They would have said, "it could never happen, cops do not act that way. Women do not behave like that..." and so on.

Ultimately Film is a subjective medium. People react differently to the same film.

I am going to play devil's advocate here. If Sin City was a two dimensional film, what is Chinatown? Former cop, now a private eye. The dame and her problems.
Btw, I like Chinatown.

I realize I insulted a movie you love, and I'm sorry, but don't insult me. I watch more present B movies than I do B movies of the past (or A movies of the present). I'm no snob. I have many reasons to dislike Sin City. I studied film, so yes, some reasons happen to be academic. It having overstylized, contentless two-dimensionality is simply an opinion, but it is one I feel strongly about and approach thoughtfully -- not the kind of conclusion I want people comparing to Chinatown, one of the deepest character plots in the history of cinema.

 

[Feraud]

I realize I insulted a movie you love, and I'm sorry, but don't insult me. I watch more present B movies than I do B movies of the past (or A movies of the present). I'm no snob. I have many reasons to dislike Sin City. I studied film, so yes, some reasons happen to be academic. It having overstylized, contentless two-dimensionality is simply an opinion, but it is one I feel strongly about and approach thoughtfully -- not the kind of conclusion I want people comparing to Chinatown, one of the deepest character plots in the history of cinema.

You have no reason to apologize and I do so if you are offended.
I do not love Sin City but think it is a very good film. Better than the average "comic book" movie. Most (not all) characters in film are two dimensional. That is the nature of telling a 90 minute story with pictures versus the printed word.
As for 300, I am torn about seeing it. It looks like it can easily fall into the realm of Conan the Destroyer. [huh]

 

[Hondo]

History Channel

FYI: Tonight History Channel has a program on the battle of Thermopylae between 300 Spartans and Persian army at 9pm (pst) "The Last Stand of 300"

 

[Doctor Strange]

No doubt it includes sneak-peak footage from 300... ah, the age of merchandising synergy!

I watch the History Channel a lot, but am generally disappointed by their roughly 7th-grade level of detail/analysis, and those amazingly redundant pre- and post-commercial teases/recaps. If you dropped those (and the breaks themselves), the actual content in an hour show would definitely be only a half-hour at best!

 

[Story]

It looks like it can easily fall into the realm of Conan the Destroyer. [huh]

Oh com'n now! Where else could we have gotten this timeless exchange?

Mongol warlord: Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I have nothing against this movie in whatever version the story is told; a film maker has a right to tell whatever story he chooses. However, this is such a moving story, and such a fascinating chapter in history, I only wish it were being given a more serious treatment.

I am a little surprised at the depth of the interest on this forum that this film has raised. I suppose, if one could project from that fact, this film may generate interest as well in the general public; it should make for a good opening weekend.

 

[Feraud]

Oh com'n now! Where else could we have gotten this timeless exchange?

Mongol warlord: Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

Hold on a sec.. You quoted Conan the Barbarian, an awesome movie!!
I was referring to Conan the Destroyer with Grace Jones and Wilt Chamberlain, a not so awesome movie.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Oh com'n now! Where else could we have gotten this timeless exchange?

Mongol warlord: Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

Conan was written by Oliver Stone as an existential treatise. The best example of this is his speech to Crom before the big battle. I’ll let you judge as to how successful he was.

 

[Feraud]

I am not sure how serious a treatment 300 will be given until we see it.
What is relevant is how historical events apparently need to be givent the Hollywood treatment. This is not my opinion but an observation. Will audiences see and appreciate "just the facts"?
We talk gripe about "audiences today" but bear in mind audiences of yesterday. They were just as average as we are today.
DeMille gave 'em plenty of schmaltz and beefcake with Victor Mature as Sampson. What the heck was EG Robinson doing in The Ten Commandments?

 

[Story]

Hold on a sec.. You quoted Conan the Barbarian, an awesome movie!!
I was referring to Conan the Destroyer with Grace Jones and Wilt Chamberlain, a not so awesome movie.

Oh dear, in all the confusion I lost count.

 

[Doctor Strange]

You know, I kinda like Conan the Detroyer. Freed of the (incorrect) origin story, ponderous self-importance, and heavy handed Jim Jones/Thulsa Doom analogy that made the original Conan film drag in places, Destroyer is fun - an unpretentious comic-book action flick.

Before you all attack me, I also really like the first film, and I understand that it's arguably a much better movie, has a better cast, better music, better production values, etc. But I find that I enjoy Destroyer more, in some ways: somehow, its lower budget and brain-dead plot play to its advantage... A minority opinion, I know. (And, I admit, this is odd coming from someone who earlier in this thread has objected sight-unseen to 300 for not having enough story/character and being a total action movie!)

Anyway, I think Conan the Barbarian is a little bit weaker than its reputation, and Conan the Destroyer is a little bit better. Both are good sword-and-sorcery fun...